Avid Pharmaceuticals Pvt.Ltd vs State of Punjab

V. K. Jhanji, J.

This judgment will dispose of Criminal Misc. No. 8584M of 1992.

Petition has been filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint, Annexure P1 and the consequent proceedings pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 read with Insecticides Rules, 1971.

In brief, the facts are that on 11.10.1989 Kuldeep Singh, Inspector Insecticides, Faridkot, visited the shop of M/s. Bharat Traders, Faridkot and took sample of Aldrin 30% EC out of stock of 6 litres in packing of 250 ml. each. Three containers and three Form No. XII were packed in three separate cloth bags. One sample and one Form No. XII was handed over to the dealer at the spot. One sample was sent to the Director, Plant Protection Guarantee and Storage NHIV, Faridabad. Sample was analysed in the Laboratory on 5.12.1989 and it was opined as under :

"The sample does not conform to the relevant IS specifications with respect to the active ingredient content requirement and is therefore misbranded."

The sample was, therefore, not in conformity with IS specifications with respect to its per centage active ingredient and thus the dealer and the manufacturer had committed offence by selling, manufacturing and stocking the insecticides not according to prescribed standard under the licence granted to them.

Present complaint, Annexure P1 has been filed against the petitioners in respect of aforesaid offences for quashing the complaint on the ground that before launching prosecution, it was necessary to obtain legal sanction from the State Government under Section 31 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short the Act). According to the petitioner, no valid sanction has been granted for prosecution of the petitioner. The Sanctioning Authority did not apply its mind before granting sanction to launch prosecution and gave the sanction on a cyclostyled proforma. No details of the facts regarding the same being misbranded were given. Even the name of the petitioner against whom complaint has been filed, has not been mentioned in the sanction. It has further been alleged that in the entire complaint, there is neither any allegation nor any material to show that petitioners No. 2 and 3 were charged or responsible to the Company at the relevant time.

In the written statement filed by the respondents, it is maintained that sanction granted by the Sanctioning Authority was proper and legal and it was accorded after perusal of the relevant record. It has further been stated that under Section 33(2) of the Act, any Director, Manager or Secretary would be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the petition deserves to succeed, and the complaint against the petitioners deserved to be quashed. Complaint has been filed against M/s. Bharat Traders, Faridkot, Shri Bharat Bhushan, partner, Sh. Ashwani Kumar, partner, Mrs. Ram Piari, partner, Shri Janak Raj, partner and M/s. Avid Pharmaceutical Private Limited, manufacturer. Copy of sanction (Annexure P5) under Section 31(1) of the Act shows that sanction to prosecute was given against M/s. Bharat Traders, Faridkot (Dealer) and M/s. Avid Pharmaceuticals Private Limited (Manufacturer). The names of petitioners No. 2 and 3 do not find mention in the sanction order. Moreover, in the complaint, it has not been mentioned as to how petitioners No. 2 and 3 are being prosecuted when there is no sanction by any competent Authority. Section 31 of the Act provides that no prosecution for an offence under this Act shall be instituted except by, or with the written consent of, the State Government or a person authorised in this behalf by the State Government. According to this section, the Court cannot take cognizance of the offence under the Act, except when a proper sanction is granted by the State Government or a person authorised in this behalf by the State Government. For the sanction to be valid, it has to be established that the sanction was given in respect of the facts constituting the offence with which the accused is proposed to be charged and it is desirable that the facts should be mentioned in the sanction. Sanction in the present case was given in a stereotype form, wherein only the name of the firm, dealer, distributor and the company of the manufacturer and also the various sections of the Act under which the firm and the Company were to be charged, are mentioned. It does not contain the name of the Insecticide Inspector who took the sample and how the sample was found to be misbranded. In the absence of these particulars, it cannot be said that the person authorised by the State Government to grant sanction fully applied his mind and consented to the prosecution of the petitioners after his full satisfaction regarding the commission of the offences. In Hanuman Sharma, Marketing Manager, M/s. Agro Chemicals v. State of Punjab and others, 1992(3) Recent Criminal Reports 121 sanction to prosecute was granted by the Sanctioning Authority on a cyclostyled form which did not even mention the date of taking sample. It was held that the competent authority did not apply its mind and proceedings were quashed. Similar view was taken in Criminal Misc. No. 8656M of 1992, Sadhu Singh and others v. State of Punjab, decided on April 26, 1993 pari materia to the facts of the aforesaid case. Thus, no exception can be made in the case of the petitioners.

As a result, I allow this petition and quash the complaint, Annexure P1 and the subsequent proceedings.